Osteoporosis after adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Adjuvant treatment of early-stage breast cancer has been associated with bone loss in randomised trials, but evidence from unselected populations is needed. In a single-center study, we assessed the annual percentage change in bone mineral density (∆BMDt) and risk of osteoporosis from two to five years after adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive and oestrogen-receptor-negative tumours. METHODS: Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was performed in 241 recurrence-free Danish breast cancer patients, among whom 157 had a prior DXA scan within two years of chemotherapy ("early"). Linear regression was used to assess ∆BMDt in spine and hip according to age, different health-related variables and time since early DXA. RESULTS: Based on 157 patients, we observed annual decreases in spine BMD of 1.73% (95% confidence interval (CI): -2.01--1.44, p less than 0.001) and hip BMD of 1.30% (95% CI: -1.51--1.09, p less than 0.001). Patients aged less than 50 years at diagnosis had a significant decrease in mean spine BMD of 2.23% (95% CI: -2.78--1.68), whereas the decline was more limited in patients aged 50-59 years and patients aged 60 years or older with a mean spine BMD of 1.70% (95% CI: -2.07--1.34) and 0.81% (95% CI: -1.42--0.20), respectively. The results persisted in multivariable analyses. Osteoporosis was diagnosed in 9% of patients, all postmenopausal. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy caused bone loss, especially in younger compared with older patients with early-stage breast cancer, confirming the results from randomised trials. FUNDING: This work was supported by the Region of Southern Denmark (grant number 13/7078); the University of Southern Denmark (grant number 00-101-000); the Danish Cancer Society (grant number R90-A6210-14-52); the Department of Oncology and Department of Endocrinology, Odense University Hospital; and the Consultant Council Scholarship, Odense University Hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee in Region of Southern Denmark (Project ID S-20140142) and the Danish Data Protection Board (ID 2008-58-0035).

The Prosigna gene expression assay and responsiveness to adjuvant cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy in premenopausal high-risk patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The PAM50-based (Prosigna) risk of recurrence (ROR) score and intrinsic subtypes are prognostic for women with high-risk breast cancer. We investigate the predictive ability of Prosigna regarding the effectiveness of cyclophosphamide-based adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with high-risk breast cancer. METHODS: Prosigna assays were performed on the NanoString platform in tumors from participants in Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG) 77B, a four-arm trial that randomized premenopausal women with high-risk early breast cancer to no systemic treatment, levamisole, oral cyclophosphamide (C) or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF). RESULTS: In total, this retrospective analysis included 460 women (40% of the 1146 randomized patients). The continuous Prosigna ROR score was prognostic in the no systemic treatment group (unadjusted P < 0.001 for disease-free survival (DFS), P = 0.001 for overall survival (OS)). No statistically significant interaction of continuous ROR score and treatment on DFS and OS was found. A highly significant association was observed between intrinsic subtypes and C/CMF treatment for DFS (Pinteraction = 0.003 unadjusted, P = 0.001 adjusted) and OS (Pinteraction = 0.04). In the adjusted analysis treatment with C/CMF was associated with a reduced risk of DFS events in patients with basal-like (hazard ratio (HR) 0.14; 95% CI 0.06; 0.32) and luminal B (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.27; 0.84) subtypes but not in patients with Human epidermal growth factor receptor-enriched (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.56; 1.95) or luminal A (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.32; 1.16) subtypes. CONCLUSION: The Prosigna ROR score and intrinsic subtypes were prognostic in high-risk premenopausal patients with breast cancer, and intrinsic subtypes identify high-risk patients with or without major benefit from adjuvant C/CMF treatment.

Predicting Anthracycline Benefit: TOP2A and CEP17-Not Only but Also.

PURPOSE: Evidence supporting the clinical utility of predictive biomarkers of anthracycline activity is weak, with a recent meta-analysis failing to provide strong evidence for either HER2 or TOP2A. Having previously shown that duplication of chromosome 17 pericentromeric alpha satellite as measured with a centromere enumeration probe (CEP17) predicted sensitivity to anthracyclines, we report here an individual patient-level pooled analysis of data from five trials comparing anthracycline-based chemotherapy with CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil) as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fluorescent in situ hybridization for CEP17, HER2, and TOP2A was performed in three laboratories on samples from 3,846 of 4,864 eligible patients from five trials evaluating anthracycline-containing chemotherapy versus CMF. Methodologic differences did not affect HER2-to-CEP17 ratios but necessitated different definitions for CEP17 duplication: > 1.86 observed copies per cell for BR9601, NEAT, Belgian, and DBCG89D trials and > 2.25 for the MA.5 trial. RESULTS: Fluorescent in situ hybridization data were available in 89.3% (HER2), 83.9% (CEP17), and 80.6% (TOP2A) of 3,846 patient cases with available tissue. Both CEP17and TOP2A treatment-by-marker interactions remained significant in adjusted analyses for recurrence-free and overall survival, whereas HER2 did not. A combined CEP17 and TOP2A-adjusted model predicted anthracycline benefit across all five trials for both recurrence-free (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.82; P = .001) and overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.85; P = .005). CONCLUSION: This prospectively planned individual-patient pooled analysis of patient cases from five adjuvant trials confirms that patients whose tumors harbor either CEP17 duplication or TOP2A aberrations, but not HER2 amplification, benefit from adjuvant anthracycline chemotherapy.

One year of adjuvant tamoxifen compared with chemotherapy and tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with stage II breast cancer.

PURPOSE: We report the long-term results of a randomised trial comparing tamoxifen with tamoxifen plus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF) in postmenopausal high-risk breast cancer patients. In addition, we analyse the prognostic and predictive value of centrally assessed subtypes. METHODS: Postmenopausal patients with breast cancer and positive nodes, deep invasion or size exceeding 5 cm were randomly assigned to 1 year of tamoxifen, or cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2, methotrexate 40 mg/m2 and fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 4 weeks for nine cycles plus tamoxifen (CMFT). Tissue microarrays were constructed retrospectively and oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and proliferation-related Ki-67 antigen (Ki67) status were assessed. RESULTS: From October 1982 through March 1990 we randomised 1445 patients and 969 (67%) were eligible for the biomarker analysis. At 10-years 936 women had suffered a disease-free survival (DFS) event (tamoxifen, 495 events in 686 patients; CMFT, 441 events in 642 patients). The addition of CMF to tamoxifen significantly improved DFS (adjusted hazard ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.93; P = 0.003) but not overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.85-1.08; P = 0.44). DFS was superior in Luminal A tumours (ER or PgR positive, HER2 negative and Ki67 ≤ 14%) when compared to Luminal B or non-luminal (ER and PgR negative) tumours. There was no statistical evidence of heterogeneity by subtype in the benefit from CMF (P(interaction) = 0.45). CONCLUSION: CMF added to 1 year of tamoxifen reduces the risk of a DFS event. The benefit from CMF was not significantly different in Luminal A and B subtypes.

Persistent pain, sensory disturbances and functional impairment after adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and fluorouracil compared with docetaxel + epirubicin and cyclophosphamide.

BACKGROUND: Taxanes used in adjuvant therapy for breast cancer are neurotoxic, and thereby being a potential risk factor for persistent pain after breast cancer treatment (PPBCT) and sensory disturbances. The purpose was to compare patients treated with cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and fluorouracil (CEF) and cyclophosphamide and epirubicin + docetaxel (CE + T) in relation to PPBCT, sensory disturbances, peripheral sensory disturbances and functional impairment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative nationwide cross-sectional questionnaire study on two cohorts treated with CEF respectively CE + T, based on the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups database. INCLUSION CRITERIA: women treated with chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for primary breast cancer, age 18-69 years, without recurrence. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and forty-one patients allocated to CEF in 2005-2006 and 1652 patients allocated to CE + T in 2007-2008 were included. Six hundred and sixty-four (53%) with CEF and 861 (53%) patients with CE + T reported pain. In the multivariate analysis including available risk factors, CE + T did not confer an increased risk of PPBCT, OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.81-1.11), p = 0.52, compared to CEF. Patients treated with CE + T had a lower risk of sensory disturbances in the area of surgery compared with CEF, OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.62-0.90), p = 0.002. More CE + T patients reported peripheral sensory disturbances in the hands, OR 1.56 (95%CI 1.27-1.92), p < 0.0001, and in the feet, OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.66-2.42) p < 0.0001, compared to CEF. There was no difference in functional impairment (p = 0.62). CONCLUSION: Docetaxcel as adjuvant treatment for breast cancer does not increase the risk of PPBCT, sensory disturbances in the surgical area or functional impairment, but increase risk for peripheral sensory disturbances.

TIMP-1 in combination with HER2 and TOP2A for prediction of benefit from adjuvant anthracyclines in high-risk breast cancer patients.

HER2 amplification, TOP2A aberrations, and absence of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase (TIMP-1) expression in breast carcinomas have been shown to be associated with incremental benefit from anthracycline-containing adjuvant chemotherapy, and this study was undertaken to validate these findings in a similar, but independent, randomized clinical trial. TIMP-1 was examined by immunohistochemistry in archival tumor tissue from 403 of 716 premenopausal high-risk patients with known HER2 and TOP2A status who were randomized to cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil (CEF) or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) in the MA.5 trial. Ninety-eight (24%) patients had no TIMP-1 staining of tumor cells, 27% were HER2 amplified, and 18% were TOP2A aberrant. Forty-four percentage was classified as HT responsive (HER2 amplified and/or TIMP-1 negative) and 37% as 2T responsive (TOP2A aberrant and/or TIMP-1 negative). There was no heterogeneity in treatment effect of CEF versus CMF according to TIMP-1. In HT-responsive patients, CEF was superior to CMF with an improved RFS (adjusted HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.97), but this was not significant for OS (adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42-1.04). A significant HT profile versus treatment interaction was detected for OS (P = 0.03). In 2T-responsive patients, CEF seemed to improve RFS compared to CMF (adjusted HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.43-1.03) and improved OS (adjusted HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.93). A significant 2T profile versus treatment interaction was detected for OS (P = 0.01). With this study, we validate a more substantial reduction in mortality by CEF compared to CMF in patients with an HT- or 2T-responsive profile; however, we could not show a similarly significant reduction in RFS events, where a benefit of CEF over CMF was found irrespective of TIMP-1 status. Further studies are necessary before the HT and 2T profiles may be used to direct the use of anthracyclines.

Cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil; oral cyclophosphamide; levamisole; or no adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk, premenopausal breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) 77B trial examined the relative efficacy of levamisole, single-agent oral cyclophosphamide, and the classic combination of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) against no adjuvant systemic therapy in high-risk breast cancer patients. The authors report the results from that trial after a potential follow-up of 25 years. METHODS: Between 1977 and 1983, 1146 premenopausal patients who had tumors >5 cm or positive axillary lymph nodes were assigned randomly to 1 of 4 options: no systemic therapy, levamisole 5 mg weekly for 48 weeks (the levamisole arm), oral cyclophosphamide 130 mg/m(2) on Days 1 through 14 every 4 weeks for 12 cycles (the C arm), or oral cyclophosphamide 80 mg/m(2) on Days 1 through 14 plus methotrexate 30 mg/m(2) and fluorouracil 500 mg/m(2) intravenously on Days 1 and 8 every 4 weeks for 12 cycles (the CMF arm). RESULTS: The 10-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) rate was 38.6% in the control arm compared with 55.5% in the C arm, 48.8% in the CMF arm, and 35.2% in the levamisole arm. Compared with the control arm, the hazard ratio for an IDFS event was 0.62 in the C arm (P = .001) and 0.70 in the CMF arm (P = .01). The hazard ratio for death was 0.70 in both the C arm (P = .02) and the CMF arm (P = .02) at 10 years, and the overall survival (OS) benefit was maintained during 25 years of follow-up. No significant differences were observed in IDFS or OS between the C arm and the CMF arm or between the levamisole arm and the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with controls, both cyclophosphamide and CMF significantly improved disease-free survival and OS, and the benefits persisted for at least 25 years in premenopausal patients who had high-risk breast cancer.

HER2, TOP2A, and TIMP-1 and responsiveness to adjuvant anthracycline-containing chemotherapy in high-risk breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE To evaluate whether the combination of HER2 with TIMP-1 (HT) or TOP2A with TIMP-1 (2T) more accurately identifies patients who benefit from cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil (CEF) compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) than these markers do when analyzed individually. PATIENTS AND METHODS The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) 89D trial randomly assigned 980 high-risk Danish breast cancer patients to CMF or CEF. Archival tumor tissue was analyzed TIMP-1, and HER2-negative and TIMP-1 immunoreactive tumors were classified as HT nonresponsive and otherwise HT responsive. Similarly, the 2T panel was constructed by combining TOP2A and TIMP-1; tumors with normal TOP2A status and TIMP-1 immunoreactivity were classified as 2T-nonresponsive and otherwise 2T-responsive. Results In total, 623 tumors were available for analysis, of which 154 lacked TIMP-1 immunoreactivity, 188 were HER2 positive, and 139 had a TOP2A aberration. HT status was a statistically significant predictor of benefit from CEF compared with CMF (P(interaction) = .036 for invasive disease-free survival [IDFS] and .047 for overall survival [OS]). The 269 (43%) patients with a 2T-responsive profile had a significant reduction in IDFS events (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.69; P < .001) and OS events (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.77; P < .001). 2T status was a highly significant predictor of benefit from CEF compared with CMF (P(interaction) < .0001 for IDFS and .004 for OS). CONCLUSION The 2T profile is a more accurate predictor of incremental benefit from anthracycline-containing chemotherapy than HER2, TIMP-1, or TOP2A individually, and compared with these, 2T classifies a larger proportion of patients as sensitive to anthracyclines.

Lack of TIMP-1 tumour cell immunoreactivity predicts effect of adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy in patients (n=647) with primary breast cancer. A Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group Study.

PURPOSE: A number of prospective studies have shown that adjuvant CEF significantly improves disease-free and overall survival as compared to CMF in breast cancer patients. Our aim was to determine whether the benefit of epirubicin versus methotrexate differs according to TIMP-1 tumour cell immunoreactivity. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tissue micro arrays from 647 patients randomly assigned to CMF or CEF in DBCG trial 89D were included. The primary end-point was invasive disease-free survival (IDFS). A central assessment of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 1 (TIMP-1) status was performed using immunohistochemistry (IHC). Tumours were regarded as TIMP-1 positive if epithelial breast cancer cells were stained using the anti-TIMP-1 monoclonal antibody VT7. RESULTS: By central assessment 75% of tumours were classified as tumour cell TIMP-1 positive. Among CEF-treated patients, individuals with TIMP-1 negative tumours had a significant longer IDFS than patients with TIMP-1 positive tumours (p=0.047). The multivariate Cox regression analysis of IDFS showed that CEF was superior to CMF among patients with TIMP-1 negative tumours (hazard ratio (HR)=0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.31-0.84, p=0.0085), while no significant difference could be demonstrated among patients with TIMP-1 positive tumours (HR=0.88; 95% CI: 0.68-1.13, p=0.32). A non-significant TIMP-1 status (positive or negative) versus treatment (CMF or CEF) interaction was detected for IDFS (p=0.06) and OS (p=0.21). CONCLUSION: Lack of TIMP-1 tumour cell immunoreactivity seems to predict a favourable effect of epirubicin-containing adjuvant therapy in primary breast cancer. However, an independent study is awaited to validate the potential predictive value of TIMP-1 immunoreactivity.

Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in premonopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer: indirect comparison of dose and schedule in DBCG trials 77, 82, and 89.

UNLABELLED: A significant reduction in the risk of recurrence and death was achieved three decades ago with adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with operable breast. The major pivotal trials used oral cyclophosphamide (C) days 1-14 with intravenous methotrexate (M) and fluorouracil (F) on days 1 and 8, repeated every 28 days. The classical CMF has later been modified as concerns dose and schedule, without formal comparisons in randomised trials between the classical CMF and the modifications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Classical CMF was used in the first adjuvant chemotherapy trial performed by the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG), and two succeeding randomised trials in premenopausal patients with node positive breast cancer used three-weekly or four-weekly intravenous CMF in one of the treatment arms. RESULTS: Between November 1977 and January 2001 these trials included 2 213 patients who in addition to surgery and radiotherapy received CMF. Ten-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 48% following classical CMF, 45% following four-weekly and 47% following three-weekly CMF. Major differences in patient characteristics were observed across these three cohorts, and a multivariate analysis was performed adjusting for the known prognostic factors. In the adjusted analysis a 30% increase in the risk of recurrence was observed for two the intravenous regimens as compared to classical CMF. As concerns survival a significant 40% increase in the risk of death was observed with the four-weekly regimen, while a similar risk of death was observed with the three-weekly intravenous. Classical CMF was associated with a higher risk of amenorrhoea, and this may at least in part explain an observed interaction between age and efficacy. DISCUSSION: This cross trial comparison suggests a detrimental effect in premenopausal patients with node positive breast cancer when shifting from classical CMF to intravenous regimens with lower dose-intensity. Caution is required in the interpretation of these results due to the non-experimental study design.

DBCG trial 89B comparing adjuvant CMF and ovarian ablation: similar outcome for eligible but non-enrolled and randomized breast cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: A cohort of premenopausal patients with primary hormone receptor positive breast cancer was prospectively identified to be eligible for the DBCG 89B trial. We perform a long-term follow-up and evaluate the external validity of the trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following registration in a population-based registry, patients were invited to be randomized to ovarian ablation (OA) versus nine courses of three-weekly cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF). The same procedures were used in all patients, including report forms, central review, querying, and analysis of data. Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for differences in base-line characteristics. RESULTS: Participation in the randomization varied according to center and time period. One thousand six hundred and twenty eight eligible patients were registered and 525 randomized in the DBCG 89B trial. Median estimated follow-up was 9.5 years for disease-free survival and 12.1 years for overall survival. Non-enrolled patients had a disease-free and overall survival similar to randomized patients. Within 5 years of surgery, results were similar following OA and CMF, but disease-free survival was significant inferior with OA more than five years after surgery, adjusted hazard ratio 1.38 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.85; p=0.03). This convened ten years after surgery to an inferior survival with OA, and the adjusted hazard ratio was 2.37 (95% CI 1.43 to 3.91; p<0.01). DISCUSSION: This prospective cohort study indicates that eligible patients not participating in the DBCG 89B trial had a similar disease-free and overall survival as participants. Survival was similar after OA and CMF in the first ten years, but became inferior in the OA group 10 or more years after surgery.

Bisphosphonate treatment in primary breast cancer: results from a randomised comparison of oral pamidronate versus no pamidronate in patients with primary breast cancer.

PURPOSE AND PATIENTS: During the period from January 1990 to January 1996 a total of 953 patients with lymph node negative primary breast cancer were randomised to oral pamidronate (n=460) 150 mg twice daily for 4 years or no adjuvant pamidronate (n=493) in order to investigate whether oral pamidronate can prevent the occurrence of bone metastases and fractures. The patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, loco-regional radiation therapy, but no endocrine treatment. RESULTS: During the follow-up period the number of patients with pure bone metastases was 35 in the control group and 31 in the pamidronate group. The number of patients with a combination of bone and other distant metastases were 22 in the control group and 20 in the pamidronate group. The hazard rate ratio for recurrence in bone in the pamidronate group compared to the control group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.75-1.40) and p=0.86. No effect was observed on overall survival. In a small subgroup of 27 patients from the study, 12 of whom were treated with pamidronate a significant bone preserving effect was observed on bone mineral density in the lumbar spine, but not in the proximal femur. CONCLUSION: The results from the trial do not support a beneficial effect of oral pamidronate on the occurrence of bone metastases or fractures in patients with primary breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy.

Similar efficacy for ovarian ablation compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil: from a randomized comparison of premenopausal patients with node-positive, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of ovarian ablation versus chemotherapy in early breast cancer patients with hormone receptor-positive disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted an open, randomized, multicenter trial including premenopausal breast cancer patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors and either axillary lymph node metastases or tumors with a size of 5 cm or more. Patients were randomly assigned to ovarian ablation by irradiation or to nine courses of chemotherapy with intravenous cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) administered every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Between 1990 and May 1998, 762 patients were randomly assigned, and the present analysis is based on 358 first events. After a median follow-up time of 8.5 years, the unadjusted hazard ratio for disease-free survival in the ovarian ablation group compared with the CMF group was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.22). After a median follow-up time of 10.5 years, overall survival (OS) was similar in the two groups, with a hazard ratio of 1.11 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.42) for the ovarian ablation group compared with the CMF group. CONCLUSION: In this study, ablation of ovarian function in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer had a similar effect to CMF on disease-free and OS. No significant interactions were demonstrated between treatment modality and hormone receptor content, age, or any of the well-known prognostic factors.